Targeted fault tolerance by special CPU instructions

ABSTRACT

One embodiment disclosed relates to a microprocessor for targeted fault-tolerant computing. The microprocessor&#39;s decode circuitry is configured to decode a fault-tolerant version of an instruction and a non-fault-tolerant version of the instruction distinctly from each other. The microprocessor&#39;s execution circuitry is configured to execute the fault-tolerant version of the instruction with redundancy checking and to execute the non-fault-tolerant version of the instruction without redundancy checking.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates generally to computer systems. Moreparticularly, the present invention relates to fault tolerant and highlyavailable computer systems.

2. Description of the Background Art

Previous solutions for providing fault tolerance in digital processingare either hardware based, software based, or some combination of both.Fault tolerance may be provided in hardware by running two full centralprocessing units (CPUs) in lockstep, or three CPUs in a “voting”configuration. For example, a system may employ three CPUs executing thesame instruction stream, along with three separate main memory units andseparate I/O devices which duplicate functions, so if one of each typeof element fails, the system continues to operate. Unfortunately, suchsystems include tremendous system overhead, not only in terms of thenumber of CPUs required, but also in terms of the infrastructuresupporting the CPUs (memory, power, cooling systems, and so on).

Software based solutions typically rely on complete re-running of aprogram at least three times. This results in effective execution timesthat are three times longer than if the program was run only once.Combination schemes require both extra hardware (for example, twice thehardware) and extra processing. The extra processing may take the formof software check-pointing. Software check-pointing pertains to theability to, on an error, “replay” a specific instruction sequence.

The above-discussed prior solutions are expensive in terms of costand/or system performance. Hence, improvements in systems and methodsfor providing fault tolerant digital processing are highly desirable.

SUMMARY

One embodiment of the invention pertains to a microprocessor fortargeted fault-tolerant computing. The microprocessor's decode circuitryis configured to decode a fault-tolerant version of an instruction and anon-fault-tolerant version of the instruction distinctly from eachother. The microprocessor's execution circuitry is configured to executethe fault-tolerant version of the instruction with redundancy checkingand to execute the non-fault-tolerant version of the instruction withoutredundancy checking.

Another embodiment of the invention pertains to a method for targetedfault-tolerant computing in a central processing unit (CPU). The methodincludes decoding a fault-tolerant version of an instruction to generatea first op code and decoding a non-fault-tolerant version of theinstruction to generate a second op code. The first op code is executedwith redundancy checking. The second op code Is executed withoutredundancy checking.

Another embodiment of the invention pertains to a computer programproduct. The program product includes a first type of computer-readableinstructions to be executed with redundancy checking and a second typeof computer-readable instructions to be executed non-redundantly.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is an example schematic diagram of CPU circuitry for targetedfault tolerance in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. Thoseskilled in the art of microprocessor design will realize that otherdesigns that perform the same basic function can exist.

FIG. 2A depicts an example instruction sequence using a fault-tolerantversion of an instruction in accordance with an embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 2B is a flow chart of a process performed in a CPU during executionof a fault-tolerant instruction in accordance with an embodiment of theinvention.

FIG. 3 is a diagram depicting two different levels of targeted faulttolerance in accordance with an embodiment of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

As discussed above, prior systems and methods for fault-tolerant digitalprocessing have various disadvantages. The present invention relates tosystems and methods for improved fault-tolerant computing.

A conventional instruction set of a modern microprocessor is composed ofinstructions generally optimized for performance. In accordance with anembodiment of the invention, special instructions that havefault-tolerant features are added to supplement such a conventionalinstruction set. For example, an arithmetic or logical operation mayhave two types or versions. A non-fault-tolerant version uses anexecution path that is configured for rapid performance, while afault-tolerant version uses a path with redundancy checking to assurethe correctness of the result. In contrast, conventional CPUs do nottypically provide such a verification option for arithmetic and logicfunctions. This is because the verification of these functions istypically slow and complex, which reduces performance in terms of speed.Other structures in the microprocessor, such as caches, registers,translation lookaside buffers (TLBs), and the like, are usually verifiedby parity bits or error correction coding.

An embodiment of the present invention utilizes special versions ofcertain CPU instructions to provide fault tolerance in a targetedmanner. Specific operations within an application may be targeted forfault tolerance, while other operations (or other entire programs) maybe performed without the overhead due to redundancy checking.

Such targeted fault tolerance has various advantages over priorsolutions. It may be selectively applied to system processes, instead ofbeing applied to all system processes. There are some processes that arenot critical enough to warrant the dedication of such resources, or thatare desirable to run as fast as possible (without being slowed down byredundancy checking). For example, a print spooler program is unlikelyto be critical enough to need fault tolerance. In accordance with anembodiment of the invention, targeted fault tolerance allows such anon-critical program to be written without the specialredundancy-checking instructions, so that the non-critical program doesnot unnecessarily tie up valuable system resources. On the other hand,critical programs or processes requiring redundancy checking may bewritten using the special instructions so as to provide fault-tolerantexecution thereof. The choice may be left up to the applicationprogrammer.

FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of CPU circuitry for targeted faulttolerance in accordance with an example embodiment of the invention. TheCPU circuitry includes a fetch unit 102, an instruction cache 104, aninstruction decoder unit 106, register load/store circuitry 108, afloating point register file 110, a first floating point unit (FPU #1)112, a second floating point unit (FPU #2) 114, and hardware comparatorand associated flags 116.

Of course, the CPU includes other components and connections beyondthose illustrated. The illustrated components include those pertinent tothe example fault-tolerant operation discussed below in relation toFIGS. 2A and 2B.

In accordance with an embodiment of the invention, the instructiondecoder circuitry 106 is configured to decode fault-tolerant andnon-fault-tolerant versions of an instruction distinctly from eachother. The fault-tolerant instruction may be represented by a firstoperation code (op code), while the non-fault-tolerant version of thesame instruction may be represented by a second op code. The CPUcircuitry is configured to execute the fault-tolerant version of theinstruction with redundancy checking and to execute thenon-fault-tolerant version of the instruction without redundancychecking.

In accordance with one embodiment, the flags (see 116) may include afirst “valid” flag and a second “comparison result” flag. The valid flagmay be used to indicate the validity of a stored result. The comparisonresult flag may indicate the result of a comparison made by theassociated comparator.

FIG. 2A depicts an example instruction sequence using a fault-tolerantversion of an instruction in accordance with an embodiment of theinvention. The example instruction sequence includes a fault-tolerantmultiplication instruction (FT_MULT). Other examples include afault-tolerant addition instruction (FT_ADD), other fault-tolerantarithmetic instructions, and fault-tolerant logical instructions(FT_AND, FT_NAND, FT_OR, FT_XOR, and the like).

The sequence in FIG. 2A begins by loading operand x into a firstregister R1 and loading operand y into a second register R2. After theregisters are loaded with the operands, the multiplication operation isperformed.

With a normal, non-fault-tolerant multiplication (MULT), the contents ofR1 and R2 are sent directly to a floating point unit which generates aresult that is stored into a third register R3. The result in R3 wouldbe assumed to be valid for the MULT operation.

Here, however, we execute a fault-tolerant multiplication (FT_MULT). TheFT_MULT operation is slower and more complex than the MULT operation.The specific steps involved in one embodiment of performing such afault-tolerant operation is described as follows in relation to FIG. 2B.

FIG. 2B is a flow chart of a process performed in a CPU during executionof a fault-tolerant instruction in accordance with an embodiment of theinvention. The process begins by sending 202 the contents of the firstand second registers (R1 and R2) both to a first floating point unit(FPU #1) and to a second floating point unit (FPU #2). As shown in FIG.2B, this may be done in two parallel steps (202-1 and 202-2) for reasonsof efficiency. For example, the circuitry may be configured as depictedin FIG. 1, with contents of R1 and R2 being loaded from the registerfile 110 into both FPU #1 112 and FPU #2 114 in parallel.

Each of the FPUs #1 and #2 then perform (204-1 and 204-2, respectively)the designated operation on the operands. In the case of FT_MULT, theoperation is a multiplication of the two operands. The results of theoperations are sent 206-1 and 206-2 by each FPU to a comparator. Thecomparator preferably comprises a hardware circuit 116 which is designedto rapidly compare the two results and determine 208 if they match or donot match.

If the two results do match, then a valid result is stored 210 in athird register R3. The result may be indicated as valid by setting avalid flag associated with the comparator. (A reset of the valid flagwould indicate an invalid result). Finding that the results matchverifies the accuracy of the operation performed.

On the other hand, if the results do not match, then a determination 212is made as to whether the maximum N times for repeating or redoing theoperation has been reached. A counter device may be used to keep trackof the repeat times. In one specific implementation, N may be threetimes. Alternatively, N may be one time, two times, four times, or more.In one embodiment, the number N may be a parameter of the fault tolerantinstruction such that N may be selectable.

If the maximum N times for repeating has been performed already, then amachine check may be performed 214 to check and/or diagnose the apparenterroneous operation of the CPU. An error message may be generated as aresult of the machine check.

If the maximum N times for repeating has not been reached, then theprocess loops back such that the FPUs re-perform 204 the operation andre-send 206 their results to the comparator. The determination 208 isagain made as to whether or not the results match. If this time there isa match, then a valid result is stored 210 in R3. If no match, then acheck 212 is again made to see if the maximum repeat times has beenreached. If the maximum has been reached with no match, then a machinecheck may be performed 214. Otherwise, the process loops back again torepeat the operation in the FPUs.

In one embodiment, a log is kept of compare errors (i.e. when thecomparison results do not match). For example, if a first iteration ofthe operation fails the comparison, but a later iteration passes, thenthe compare error(s) may be logged, even if a machine check was notperformed. The logging may be implemented as an additional step after adetermination 208 is made that the results do not match. For instance,the logging may be performed as an additional step between blocks 208and 212 in FIG. 2.

FIG. 3 is a diagram depicting two different levels of targeted faulttolerance in accordance with an embodiment of the invention.

A first level of targeting is at the program level. An embodiment of theinvention enables a program to be written with some fault-tolerant (F-T)aspects or with no fault-tolerant aspects. A program with fault-tolerantaspects is illustrated as Program A 302, while a program withoutfault-tolerant aspects is illustrated as Program B 303. Program A 302includes at least one routine 304 that uses fault-tolerant versions ofone or more instruction. On the other hand, Program B 303 includes onlyroutines 306 not using any fault-tolerant versions of instructions. Inother words, an embodiment of the invention enables a program to betargeted as including some fault-tolerance or not. Programs without anyfault-tolerance should perform fastest.

A second level of targeting is per routine or sequence of instructions,or even per instruction, within a program. Consider Program A 302 inFIG. 3. Program A 302 includes some routines 304 that may be targeted touse fault-tolerant instructions and other routines 306 that do not usefault-tolerant instructions. The routines 304 targeted forfault-tolerance may be more critical in some aspect. For example, theircalculations may be deemed as critical to be accurate, so thosecalculations may be targeted to be performed using fault-tolerantinstructions. On the other hand, the routines 306 that do not usefault-tolerant instructions may be less critical in terms of calculationaccuracy.

Embodiments of the present invention have various advantages over priorfault-tolerant computing techniques. Hardware and/or software overheadneeded to deliver fault tolerance may be reduced. This is done byallowing the program writer to target specific instructions inside of aprogram with an “assurance of correctness”. Hardware required is reducedbecause this scheme does not require multiple CPUs and extra associatedinfrastructure. Software execution times are kept relatively fast,because the hardware itself performs the redundancy checking on atargeted basis.

In the above description, numerous specific details are given to providea thorough understanding of embodiments of the invention. However, theabove description of illustrated embodiments of the invention is notintended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise formsdisclosed. One skilled in the relevant art will recognize that theinvention can be practiced without one or more of the specific details,or with other methods, components, etc. In other instances, well-knownstructures or operations are not shown or described in detail to avoidobscuring aspects of the invention. While specific embodiments of, andexamples for, the invention are described herein for illustrativepurposes, various equivalent modifications are possible within the scopeof the invention, as those skilled in the relevant art will recognize.

These modifications can be made to the invention in light of the abovedetailed description. The terms used in the following claims should notbe construed to limit the invention to the specific embodimentsdisclosed in the specification and the claims. Rather, the scope of theinvention is to be determined by the following claims, which are to beconstrued in accordance with established doctrines of claiminterpretation.

1. A microprocessor for targeted fault-tolerant computing, themicroprocessor comprising: decode circuitry configured to decode afault-tolerant version of an instruction and a non-fault-tolerantversion of the instruction distinctly from each other; and executioncircuitry configured to execute the fault-tolerant version of theinstruction with redundancy checking and to execute thenon-fault-tolerant version of the instruction without redundancychecking.
 2. The microprocessor of claim 1, wherein the executioncircuitry includes: a first processing unit configured to receiveoperand data, execute an operation associated with the instruction; andgenerate a first result; a second processing unit configured to receivethe operand data; execute the operation, and generate a second result; acomparator configured to compare the first and second results.
 3. Themicroprocessor of claim 2, wherein for the fault-tolerant version of theinstruction, if the comparison does not match, then repeating theexecution by the processing units and the comparison of results by thecomparator up to a maximum N times until a match occurs.
 4. Themicroprocessor of claim 3, wherein, if the first and second resultsnever match, a machine check is performed on the microprocessor.
 5. Themicroprocessor of claim 2, further comprising: a register fileconfigured to provide both the first and second processing units withthe operand data.
 6. A method for targeted fault-tolerant computing in acentral processing unit (CPU), the method comprising: decoding a firstop code corresponding to a fault-tolerant version of an instruction;decoding a second op code corresponding to a non-fault-tolerant versionof the instruction; executing the first op code with redundancychecking; and executing the second op code without redundancy checking.7. The method of claim 6, wherein a set of multiple instructions isprovided in fault-tolerant and non-fault-tolerant versions of eachinstruction in the set.
 8. The method of claim 7, wherein the set ofinstructions includes arithmetic functions.
 9. The method of claim 7,wherein the set of instructions includes logical functions.
 10. Themethod of claim 6, wherein the execution of first op code comprises:providing operand data to a first processing unit; providing the operanddata to a second processing unit; executing an operation on the operanddata by the first processing unit to generate a first result; executingthe operation on the operand data by the second processing unit togenerate a second result; and comparing the first and second results.11. The method of claim 10, further comprising, if the first and secondresults do not match, repeating the execution and comparison steps. 12.The method of claim 11, wherein the repeating continues up to a maximumof N times until the first and second results match.
 13. The method ofclaim 12, further comprising, if the first and second results nevermatched during the N repetitions, performance of a machine check on theCPU.
 14. A computing apparatus for targeted fault-tolerant computing,the apparatus comprising: means for decoding a first op codecorresponding to a fault-tolerant version of an instruction and a secondop code corresponding to a non-fault-tolerant version of theinstruction; redundant means for executing the first op code; andnon-redundant means for executing the second op code.
 15. The apparatusof claim 14, wherein the redundant means comprises: a first processingunit configured to receive operand data, execute an operation associatedwith the first op code; and generate a first result; a second processingunit configured to receive the operand data; execute the operation, andgenerate a second result; a comparator configured to compare the firstand second results.
 16. A computer program product comprising acomputer-usable medium having computer-readable code-embodied therein,the computer program product including: a first type ofcomputer-readable instructions to be executed with redundancy checking;and a second type of computer-readable instructions to be executednon-redundantly.
 17. The computer program product of claim 16, whereinthe first type of computer-readable instructions includes fault-tolerantarithmetic instructions.
 18. The computer program product of claim 17,wherein the second type of computer-readable instructions includesnon-fault-tolerant arithmetic instructions.
 19. The computer programproduct of claim 16, wherein the first type of computer-readableinstructions includes fault-tolerant logical functions
 20. The computerprogram product of claim 19, wherein the second type ofcomputer-readable instructions includes non-fault-tolerant logicalinstructions.
 21. The method of claim 11, further comprising, if thefirst and second results do not match, logging a comparison error.